1. ' Undeniably respondent/plaintiff was an ex-employee of petitioners-department, who was also consumer of energy supply and on the basis of an audit note No, 32 dated 29.07.2000 through disputed bill, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs, 22,599/-qua consumption of 5956 units and the said demand was successfully assailed by him through institution of a declaratory suit.
2. The petitioners-department remained fail to substantiate their claim and through impugned judgments and decrees the suit of respondent was concurrently decreed by the two Courts below, which are under attack of this civil revision.
3. 2.Despite repeated calls no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent in spite of his service, who is proceeded against ex parte.
4. 3.Arguments of learned counsel for petitioners heard and record scanned.
5. 4.Without going into deeper appreciation of available record, when it was confronted to learned counsel for petitioners that audit note is neither binding on the consumer nor he could be held responsible for the fault of department as pointed out in audit report and the demand was advanced to the consumer without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording him opportunity of hearing to adjudge the consumer's liability for payment of the questioned amount, he has remained handicapped to respond satisfactorily. The superior Courts of the State in the following chain of judgments reported as Water and Power Development Authority etc. vs. Umaid Khan (1988 CLC 501), Khalid Pervaiz vs. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA and another (1999 CLC 1591) Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Defence Secretariat, Rawalpindi and another vs. Messrs Abdul Ghani Abdul Rehman Limited through Managing Director (2002 CLC 1039) and WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others vs. Fazal Karim and 5 others (2008 YLR 308) have already declared the demand based on audit note being violative but despite that petitioners/department is in consistent habit to demand the same from the consumers, which tendency is not only intolerable but also contemptuous and bulk of cases are pending in different Courts on the basis of illegal demands of the petitioners/ department. The instant case is a classic example of wrongful act of the petitioners/defendants, whereby its consumers are forced to agitate the same by over burdening the Courts.
5. This civil revision having no merit and merely a burden on this Court is dismissed with special cost of Rs, 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only).